a resolution meant to prevent Mr. Trump from starting a war without congressional approval
Uhhh. I have news for ya, cuckgress
The man is proving to be untouchable. If you have enough money, power and legal advice you can get away with just about anything.
He’s grabbed the country by the pussy, and we let him do it, just like he said.
I think that’s incorrect.
Donald became inevitable when the Democratic Party opted to rule in a manner that didn’t distinguish them from the Republicans in any meaningful way. “We” didn’t let him do anything. “We” exist in a country where absent a billion dollar fortune or membership in the Epstein Class, you have no power whatsoever to effect change outside of your local municipality.
My point being that he isn’t CURRENTLY supposed to be able to declare war. The Marines are the only branch of the military he should be able to send without a congressional declaration.
But, since even TWO impeachments wouldn’t stick, who will have the balls to stop him? I see your point.
Yeah he’s not supposed to do a lot of stuff. He farting all over the founding father’s faces.
That’s very generous of you to limit it to “farts”
They just forgot to add “spray” before “farts”.
And since I don’t doubt that he has limited control of his sphincter, he’s probably sharting all over George Washington. “do ya like that George?”
Democrats could file a TRO in federal court immediately asking to pause operations & that his actions violate Article I, Section 8 of the US Constitution. But they almost certainly won’t, and they want you believing exactly what you do now, which is “our hand are tied, nothing we can do, send money & vote for us, etc.” The reality is a vast majority of them are funded by AIPAC & support this.
What is this LLM slop?
Half the stuff Trump wouldn’t care about, the other half would not really affect any current military operation. Plus most of it he’d just ignore like he did most other things, e.g. tarifs are illegal, welp, let me just use some other law to justify tarifs
You’ve just demonstrated my favorite excuse from Dems.
“It’s okay that they don’t do anything because opposition is hard, and it might not work anyway, so why do anything?”
Not a democrat or even american, so 🤷
That’s not what I’m saying, OP asked an LLM for a legal opinion on what democrats could do. LLMs are terrible at legal questions/opinions. Of the things it says, if they were true and made legal sense, none of it would stop the current war any time soon, it’s stuff that would take years to figure out, by which time this likely has blown over for the next crisis.
By all means, prosecute the fucker and his administration for everything and try and make his life hell. But asking an LLM for a legal opinion on what democrats could do seems like top grade cope/virtue signaling so someone can feel better going “see, there’s all these things they can do, but they don’t, so they’re in on it and bad”. when there’s enough valid reasons to think that about democrats without falling back on slop and there’s no shortage of valid criticism, nor valid actions they could take.
It’d be good if Lemmy were to ban anyone posting AI slop, unless it’s being quoted in a reasonable context, such as an article about why AI slop is cancer.
I didn’t say their hands were tied, but he shouldn’t be committing acts of war unilaterally. That was my point
Agreed… I just don’t want people acting like there is nothing that Democrats can do right now, including cutting off funding, drafting resolutions, etc. Maybe they will do something for once, but I don’t have my hopes up. Seeing how they literally enabled the genocide in Palestine, it seems like most of them are bought & paid for.
They’re not going to do anything, not because they’re powerless, but because they’re bought off by AIPAC and support the war too, and not only that, they have a maniacal leader in charge willing to take all of the heat off of them by acting without Congress and giving them plausible deniability. It’s a dream scenario if you’re an AIPAC-bribed legislator.
Dictators are always untouchable until they’re not. Sometimes they die before justice is done, sometimes they end up on a meat hook.
If they couldn’t stop any prior president from starting a war, then why would Trump be any different.
This will never be declared a ‘war’ legally by the US government, because those require congressional approval. It will instead be a ‘military operation’, just like the Iraq War, Desert Storm 2, Afghanistan, Libya and pretty much all major military engagements since WW2.
We really ought to be calling those ‘illegal military operations’
Wild how the small innovation of just changing terminology completely allowed presidents to get around the law.
Under Obama, civilians became: “Unarmed combatants”. Under Bush, torture became “enhanced interrogation” and kidnapping became “extraordinary rendition”. Under Clinton war became “peacekeeping operation”. They all loved using the term “air strike” instead of “bombing” or “settlers” instead of “murderers and rapists”.
I hate that it works, but it works.
the Department of War does not do war, only military operations! that would be a good joke if people wouldn’t be dying
Yeah it’s Monty python level worplay shit, but sadly that’s what passes for skirting the law successfully in the USA.
deleted by creator
They literally posted an article supporting the war earlier today, too.
The NYT is part of the US’s consent manufacturing machine.
They just also coincidentally post some decent recipes and host some fun word games.
Got a link to the article where they support the war? Can’t find it
Here ya go. It’s another opinion piece by, if you’re familiar with the NYT, you guessed it!
Fucking Bret Stephens 🤦🤬
Him and Ross DoubtThat
Link didn’t work for me but I found it through the Bret comment below. I don’t know the guy – but now I read the article I remember reading something from him before, and looking him up on wiki because I thought “WTF NYT?!”. I guess he is the voice of conservatism / MAGA in the NYT. So yeah, it’s rather strange that they would allow a voice like that in their newspaper, but I guess that’s the journalists’ compulsion to show both sides of a story even if one side of that story smells rotten AF.
That being said: the Irani regime is horrible and they have been killing their citizens for weeks now and have been suppressing them for much longer. Thousands of innocents are dead. Something clearly had to be done to stop the bloodshed.
If it were anyone other than these two old war criminals attacking the Irani regime, I would support it as well. But of course the issue is that these old farts are using it as an excuse to increase their power in the Middle East.
Europe should have stepped up their game, but as always, they were as slow as a constipated turd moving through a rectum. And now it’s too late.
This article, like Schumer’s statement after the attack reads like, “come on man, I’m horny to get bombing in Iran, but you didn’t apply the customary lube first.”
I like the NYT journalism but their opinion pieces are all over the place, they always seem to go for the two sides, or even more sides so there’ll always be at least one you agree with and one that you absolutely hate
How about we discuss the article and not its source?
We can do both.
An understandable question, but this opinion article is by the editorial board; the source and the author in this case are functionally identical, so it’s entirely valid, in my opinion, to point out contradictions like this.
I don’t think you should be downvoted for what would otherwise be a reasonable, level-headed response.
Edit: by the way, @SarahValentine@lemmy.blahaj.zone, maybe a source besides a screenshot of a ChatGPT log is appropriate here.
Even if this is the editorial board, these are all unrelated topics where, yes, they could have done better, but perhaps it was the naivety of the time. And it’s definitely not as if they’re a pro-Trump news outlet.
However, they do have that weird legacy-media combination of pomposity and serrvility.
Of course. They think very highly of themselves
deleted by creator
He started this war for two reasons: Israel told him to, and if he failed to act, they were going to expose the extent of his crimes against children as recorded in the Epstein files.
I doubt if extortion was needed. He wants people to die because of him. It makes him feel important.
Because he raped and murdered kids with the Israeli’s, politicians and oligarchs and they don’t want to go to jail so they’re going to blow up some schools and hospitals and hope we forget
Mr. President
When’s NYT compost event?
the correct term of address is not “Mr President,” but “you fucking pedo pig.”
The President is merely acting according to his nature - the ultimate explanation of why he is doing this is that the American pubic chose to trust the sort of man that he is. Challenging the fox’s motives after he has been voted back into the henhouse is a waste of words.
I keep thinking back to all the conversations with alleged leftists here on how they were both the same and Biden was too soft on Israel, which disqualified Harris and at least Trump was running on ending foreign wars.
Still haven’t seen any “oh, wow, yeah, that’s way worse than I thought it’d be, I was kinda wrong on that one”, either.
I know I should not be pushing the issue in hopes that they quietly show up for the midterms, but at this point US politics is not worth engaging with and you can only take so many middle class cosplayers smugly calling you a naive centrist for even entertaining a gradient of madness between US political factions before you start getting flashbacks the circling of the drain speeds up.
It was always propaganda to depress Dem voter turnout, nothing else.
deleted by creator
